Operating Model & Transformation
When the strategy is right and execution still stalls, the operating model is the constraint. Org design, decision rights, cost structure and the cadence that holds the whole thing together.
You are probably here because of one of these.
None of these is the problem. Each is a symptom, and the diagnostic exists to find out which underlying constraint is producing it — because the obvious answer and the correct one are frequently different.
- Decisions take weeks and nobody can say who actually makes them.
- The org chart has been reorganized twice and the same problems survived both.
- Cost has grown faster than revenue and no single line explains it.
- Cross-functional work requires heroics, which means it requires the same three people.
- Meetings review information rather than make decisions.
- The strategy is agreed and nothing about the week looks different.
What you actually receive
Artefacts, not impressions. Everything below is yours to keep, rerun and hand to a board.
Decision rights map
For the twenty decisions that matter: who decides, who is consulted, who is informed, and how long it should take. The single highest-return artefact in most transformations.
Org design options
Structures assessed against the strategy rather than against the current people. Trade-offs made explicit, including the ones that are politically inconvenient.
Cost structure analysis
Where money goes by activity rather than by department. Vendor consolidation, duplication and zombie spend surfaced.
Process redesign
The two or three cross-functional processes that carry disproportionate load, rebuilt — with automation and agentic AI where it removes a genuine bottleneck.
Operating cadence
The weekly, monthly and quarterly rhythm, with each meeting defined by the decision it exists to make.
Transformation roadmap
Sequenced, owned, capacity-honest, with the change management burden costed rather than assumed away.
The shape of the engagement
The 4D Method →Diagnose
Decision latency analysis, activity-based cost read, process observation, cross-functional interviews.
Decide
Structure and decision-rights options assessed against the strategy. Choices made with leadership in the room.
Design
Target operating model, process redesign, cadence, transformation roadmap with owners.
Drive
First cadence cycles run with support, early friction resolved, tracking installed.
Fixed fee, agreed before work starts. Scope boundaries, assumptions, change control, IP ownership and the AI-use clause are written into every SOW. The fee is quoted after the complimentary audit, because the audit is what establishes which of these problems you actually have.
When this works, and when it does not
This engagement fits when
- The strategy is settled and execution is the problem
- The CEO or business unit head is sponsoring this personally
- Structural change is genuinely on the table
- You will publish decision rights rather than leave them implied
Look elsewhere if
- This is a restructuring looking for analytical cover
- The strategy itself is unresolved — start there instead
- No changes to reporting lines or process are permitted
- The goal is a headcount number rather than an operating outcome
The right-hand column is not modesty. A poorly matched engagement costs you a fee and costs this practice the only asset it has, which is a record of work that landed.
Operating Model & Transformation
Is this a cost-cutting engagement?
Not by default. Cost structure gets analysed because it is diagnostic — where money goes by activity reveals what the organisation actually prioritizes, which is frequently not what the strategy says. Where reduction is the objective, it is stated as the objective. Prior work has improved EBITDA margins by 8 points through corporate strategy and cost optimization, and by 20 points in a portfolio company through pricing and cost structure together.
Why start with decision rights rather than the org chart?
Because reorganizations that do not change who decides what tend to reproduce the original problem with new titles. Decision latency — how long it takes to get an answer and how many people must be consulted — is measurable, is usually the binding constraint on execution speed, and can be fixed without moving a single reporting line.
How disruptive is this to the business?
The diagnostic phase is deliberately light-touch: interviews, observation and data, without a project office or a workstream structure. The disruption comes at implementation, which is why the roadmap costs the change management burden explicitly rather than assuming the organisation has spare capacity it does not have.
Related
Thirty minutes on your version of this problem.
A working session, not a sales call. If the honest answer is that you do not need an advisor, that is what you will hear.